Ship of Fools: Is 'The Vote' about a breakdown in trust in bishops

Thread: Is 'The Vote' about a breakdown in trust in bishops Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024181

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

(Assuming there actually ever was much?)

This week's General Synod vote ended up rejecting the compromise because the proposed 'Code of Practice' wasn't seen as strong enough protection for the opponents. A significant element that doubt, apart from the fact that the code hasn't been written yet, a mistake for which there is NO excuse, is that people in the pew don't trust the bishops. The problem is that I tend to agree with the lack of trust; in my own experience I've known of a situation where a parish was bullied into the appointment of a cleric who'd had a nervous breakdown and who promptly descended into depression AND had an affair. The issue of homosexuals in relationships continuing in pastoral charge is cause of great confusion; the story that's presented is that this isn't acceptable, but 'everyone' knows that in fact it is allowed. On the OoW issue, there are stories of parishes in interregna being bullied into voting the 'right' way by Archdeacons illegally chairing PCC meetings (and yes, there are stories of parishes trying to maintain a separate existence by voting for Motion 'C'; there aren't a lot of clean hands here.)

So my question here is: is it fair to argue that the bishops are reaping what they have sown by pushing the envelope? They've done this so often and so routinely that the result is that the laity have concluded they need to give more protection than a 'code of practice'. (And let's try to stay away from Dead Horse territory: this is an attempt to look at the wider state of the CofE, though the whinnying of ghostly equines is no doubt a substantial element in many of the episcopal faux pas - or worse)

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Is 'The Vote' about a breakdown in trust in bishops

No.

Your whole premis is shot through with your usual gripes. Get over it or leave.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:
Is 'The Vote' about a breakdown in trust in bishops
No.

Your whole premis is shot through with your usual gripes. Get over it or leave.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e.

Alternatively...Yes.

Your whole premise is shot through with your usual gripes. Get over it or leave.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

ES, I think your diagnosis needs some fine tuning. From where I sit (at a slight distance from the CofE, being as I am an employee of the NHS), it seems to me that the best of bishops try to be pastors to their clergy. That means sometimes being the person who knows more of a priest's story than anyone else can know, and exercising due discretion and sensitivity.

But then you have those in the Church who want the bishops to be managers, not pastors. They want the bishops to apply rules, not discretion. They want policies, not sensitivity. They want their priest's lives - with all their failings, fragilities, sadnesses and desperations - to be public knowledge, when really they have no right to ask that.

This is how you get absurd situations like the current Clergy Discipline Measure, about which I haven't heard one bishop say a good word (despite them having voted for it). They dislike it precisely because it does what I've said - stops them being pastors, turns them into managers.

I don't think The Vote was about a breakdown in trust in the bishops - unless such a breakdown was engineered by conservative priests bad-mouthing their bishops to their congregations. If it was anything to do with our current bishops at all, I think it was a sign that perhaps the House of Laity need reminding what a bishop is.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

The pro-lobby seems to be happy for the media to report events as if Synod has rejected female Bishops: it hasn't. This collusion with the media is, IMO, evidence of a dishonesty at the heart of the pro-position. The dishonesty of pseudo-magnaminity towards those who wish to continue ministering as Anglicans despite the introduction of innovations which they can't accept as canonically binding.

Some of the people who voted "no" are pro-female bishops. They are just more forbearing towards those brethren and sistren who cannot, in good conscience, agree to the episcopal oversight of a female bishop.

In all likelihood, the Church of England will have female bishops. The issue at hand is whether those who wish to introduce this innovation to the church will do it Christianly, or by any means necessary. The tragic thing in all of this is that the pro-lobby in the House of Bishops have been silent in the face of media representation of both their position and that of their opponents. So, yes, I don't trust bishops and neither should the nation.

[ 25. November 2012, 12:04: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by jubilate Agno (# 4981) on :

Don't think the vote failing to to go the way in which one would have expected is much to do with a lack of trust in the bishops.

There are three possible reasons why the measure was defeated:

i) The need for a two thirds majority in each house is a bad system.
ii) Normally the need for a two thirds majority in each house works well but in this particular case it failed to represent the will of synod because of a "coalition" between those who condidered the measure to be insufficiently intolerant to those who don't want bishops of both genders and those who considered it not sufficiently tolerant.
iii) The measure itself was flawed because it confused the issue of whether or not we should have bishops of both genders with what we should do about those who won't accept such a change.

Had the measure been simply to agree to having bishops of both genders with the proviso that there would be a further measure to decide what provisions (if any) there should be for those opposed to the consecration of bishops of both genders, the vote would almost certainly have gone thro'.

Pax et bonum

R

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

I don't know where you've been jubilate Agno but the CofE's General Synod has already had the 'lets have women bishops but come back with some safeguards" vote. It took place in 2010 and was passed. What happened last week was that the "we'll have women bishops but with these particular safeguards" vote was lost.

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

It's so easy to sit and snipe at bishops from a keyboard or even from a pew.

'The Vote' is about an attempted accommodation that has been made impossible by lack of realism and some militancy on both sides.

Who proposed an accommodation that might have allowed the vote to go through? Why, the Archbishops!

I don't think the question or the OP are about trust in bishops at all: they are about getting the bishop(s) to do what we want rather than what they want. Being trustworthy is something completely different, and is not affected by whatever my personal gripes my be.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

But then you have those in the Church who want the bishops to be managers, not pastors. They want the bishops to apply rules, not discretion. They want policies, not sensitivity. They want their priest's lives - with all their failings, fragilities, sadnesses and desperations - to be public knowledge, when really they have no right to ask that.

There's the rub. Primarily a Bishop is to be a pastor to the pastors, a course of last resort when relationships in a parish break down irrepairably, a focus for unity in a diocese. More recently there has been a big push to make a Bishop into an administrator and manager with funny clothes on. It's a mistake, a destruction of the historic role and it holds too much power to one person, which in my view is not healthy or good.

There are times when Bishop's will appear to make strange decisions - like the appointment of someone we deem to be unsuitable to a certain task because of their background and or health issues. But if a Bishop is fulfilling their role effectively they will have seen things we haven't, know things we don't know (and in some cases have no right to know) and often be acting pastorally with gentleness, forebearance and patience, rather than as a ruthless manager. They are of course open to failures, like anyone in a managerial position too., but mirroring the way of the world; and in particular the business world is not the way to go. The kingdom of God has very different goals and objectives than the kingdom of man.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

"Managers" is, of course, a loaded word, set against the nicey nicey idea of "pastoral". We have had the same idea abounding in the RC Church, with rather disastrous consequences.

One of the roles of a bishop (in the Catholic Church at least) is governance - that's part of being a pastor. As Cardinal George of Chicago has put it, the Catholic Church's recent malaise has been because Bishops did not govern priests who would not govern themselves.

The big issue is, of course, trusting bishops to govern wisely and with justice. We have an extensive canonical system in the Catholic Church to ensure that justice is done, and if it is not done there can be an appeal against unjust decisions. Simply trusting bishops to do the right thing has never been a wise idea!

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I don't know where you've been jubilate Agno but the CofE's General Synod has already had the 'lets have women bishops but come back with some safeguards" vote. It took place in 2010 and was passed. What happened last week was that the "we'll have women bishops but with these particular safeguards" vote was lost.

Thank you, Trisagion. This is precisely the problem. The pro-lobby is happy for the commentators to lambast the conservative for 'rejecting' female bishops when they haven't. That ship has sailed. They've just voted against an inadequate pastoral provision for those who, in all good conscience, do not think that the innovation is scriptural but still wish to be considered and treated as fully Anglican.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
One of the roles of a bishop (in the Catholic Church at least) is governance - that's part of being a pastor.

Thank you! At least someone is happy to speak of episcopal "governance" without shame!

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Either this thread focuses on church governance, or if it is impossible to do that without discussing the dead horses it will be closed.

There are already multiple threads in Hell and Dead Horses to discuss your feelings or theological convictions in relationship to the issue of female bishops.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :

In the sixteenth century the church's relationship was with the crown = so we went from being Anglo-Catholic (henrty viii) to very protestant (Ed vi) to Roman catholic (bloody Mary)to Anglican ( Elizabef). Then parliament took over from the monarch, so the CofE reflected the latest popular opinions in England. But with the unions of parliaments in 1707 and 1808 it no longer even represented England, so members of other denominations were ablr to defeat the prayer book revisions in 1927 and 1928

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Some of the people who voted "no" are pro-female bishops. They are just more forbearing towards those brethren and sistren who cannot, in good conscience, agree to the episcopal oversight of a female bishop.

Many of those who voted yes have been trying to do that as well. And each time some provision is put on the table the anti-women group scuppers it, and then Synod comes back with something vaguer and less generous.

quote:

The tragic thing in all of this is that the pro-lobby in the House of Bishops have been silent in the face of media representation of both their position and that of their opponents.

Silent? Our diocesan and area bishops wrote open letters to all the parishes and ministers and issued press releases and were interviewed by journalists. I would guess many other bishops did as well. How is that silence?

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And each time some provision is put on the table the anti-women group scuppers it

We all have blinkers but yours appear to be firmly attached on this issue.

When the Archbishops' Amendment failed, Forward in Faith were disappointed. The Catholic Group regretted the fact that the legislation, despite having an overall majority, failed to gain a majority in one of the houses.

WATCH meanwhile were disappointed that those who had supported the amendment were attempting to "discredit the standard practices of General Synod" when they didn't get the result they wanted.

So, once again, ken, I'm afraid you're wrong.

Thurible

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

please guys, this topic is interesting, don't get it kicked into the dead horses board

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

It saddens me to say that my observations as a newby in the Anglican fold (now working in a diocesan Church House) suggest that there is a culture of distrust of many hierarchies. This spreads from the pew, through clergy, other employees and volunteers. But isn't this also a manifestation of a spirit of the age? Widespread distrust of anyone or ayhting in a position of responsibility and governance. When it happens in an organisation it is divisive and ofeten crippling, and maybe more so when it happens in the body of Christ.

As for the vote, I thought it did demonstrate distrust of the bishops. Simon Hill writes in Ekklesia that those who voted against "spat in the faces of those who sought to accommodate them" Simon Hill article

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
It saddens me to say that my observations as a newby in the Anglican fold (now working in a diocesan Church House) suggest that there is a culture of distrust of many hierarchies. This spreads from the pew, through clergy, other employees and volunteers. But isn't this also a manifestation of a spirit of the age? Widespread distrust of anyone or ayhting in a position of responsibility and governance. When it happens in an organisation it is divisive and ofeten crippling, and maybe more so when it happens in the body of Christ.

As for the vote, I thought it did demonstrate distrust of the bishops. Simon Hill writes in Ekklesia that those who voted against "spat in the faces of those who sought to accommodate them" Simon Hill article

The problem is that the breadth of the church gives no basis on which to expect anything; in practice bishops feel they have carte blanche to do what ever they think is right at the time regardless of the traditions of a particular parish. A broad church can work as long as everyone leaves each other alone, but once more is attempted, it goes horribly wrong. My expectation of denizen of any particular church house is a librul spouting anodyne nothings and 'managing decline' in the hope that they will survive through to their retirement. Of course this is an unfair stereotype - but it reflects the expectation that diocescan appointment panels will be unwilling to appoint people with a strong party affiliation, so go for the one least likely to give offence; after all Jesus didn't give offence to anybody, did he? [Eek!]

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Thank you, Trisagion. This is precisely the problem. The pro-lobby is happy for the commentators to lambast the conservative for 'rejecting' female bishops when they haven't. That ship has sailed. They've just voted against an inadequate pastoral provision for those who, in all good conscience, do not think that the innovation is scriptural but still wish to be considered and treated as fully Anglican.

Mindful of Doublethink's ruling: I'm just not clear how you can maintain a single church where some people have been appointed as overseers but individuals can just opt out of that oversight?

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :

Exactly, Garasu. Similarly how can you belong to a church and not recognise one third of its ordained clergy as priests. The mind boggles!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
My expectation of denizen of any particular church house is a librul spouting anodyne nothings and 'managing decline' in the hope that they will survive through to their retirement. Of course this is an unfair stereotype - but it reflects the expectation that diocescan appointment panels will be unwilling to appoint people with a strong party affiliation, so go for the one least likely to give offence; after all Jesus didn't give offence to anybody, did he?

Ender's Shadow: you're not the author of
this blog, are you? He believes that not one of the current bench of bishops is Evangelical. Presumably the Archbishop-elect of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Liverpool, to name a few, are 'libruls'. Whereas in fact, they have the intelligence and Christian charity to listen to others who might disagree, and are prepared to learn and change.

If 'librul' is your code for self-styled progressives who are reluctant to extend that tolerance to others, you may have a point. But though such people undoubtedly and regrettably exist, I don't think they are strongly represented amongst the episcopate. It's a bishop's task to be the pastor for the whole diocese, which means listening to, and trying to understand, all points of view.

I have served under three bishops from strongly evangelical backgrounds, who were clearly changed by their experiences of pastoring a broad church, without abandoning their scriptural and evangelical roots.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Ender's Shadow: you're not the author of
this blog, are you? He believes that not one of the current bench of bishops is Evangelical. Presumably the Archbishop-elect of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Liverpool, to name a few, are 'libruls'.

Gerald Bray - a very clever man, but somewhat combative [Biased]

The blog post is a bit self-contradictory. He seems able to assert both that the ordinatrion of women is not a defining issue for evengelicals and also that no-one who supports the ordained ministry of women is an evangelical. But then he uses the whole "complementarian" vs "egalitarian" language which is (in my view) muddying, mystifying, and unhelpful, and a good way to evade the clear Biblial issues.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Bray also describes the Bishop of London as a 'definite anglo catholic'. The definite anglo catholics i know would dispute that.

Liverpool is still and evangelical.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Bray also describes the Bishop of London as a 'definite anglo catholic'.

One could argue that someone who manages to be ill when Synod votes on the most controversial issue of the day in 2012 was unfortunate, if not a definite anything.

I do hope he's feeling better.

Thurible

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Liverpool is still and evangelical.

He's better like that. When he's moving you need to watch out. [Biased]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

[Killing me]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re trusting bishops:

I've never quite understood this concept.

Clergy (whether deacons, priests, bishops, or on up the stack of turtles--a la Yertle) are human beings--therefore, not completely trustworthy...ever. Some are more trustworthy than others, in certain areas, at certain times.

I'm sure it's comforting to believe that God (in whatever form) gets through to them and causes them to make the right decision about a matter...but I'm not at all sure that it has anything to do with reality.

[Confused]

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Bray also describes the Bishop of London as a 'definite anglo catholic'.
One could argue that someone who manages to be ill when Synod votes on the most controversial issue of the day in 2012 was unfortunate, if not a definite anything.

I do hope he's feeling better.

Thurible

If he was well, he could have abstained in person.

(And that would be my best guess of how he might have voted.)

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Some of the people who voted "no" are pro-female bishops. They are just more forbearing towards those brethren and sistren who cannot, in good conscience, agree to the episcopal oversight of a female bishop.
Many of those who voted yes have been trying to do that as well. And each time some provision is put on the table the anti-women group scuppers it, and then Synod comes back with something vaguer and less generous.

quote:

The tragic thing in all of this is that the pro-lobby in the House of Bishops have been silent in the face of media representation of both their position and that of their opponents.
Silent? Our diocesan and area bishops wrote open letters to all the parishes and ministers and issued press releases and were interviewed by journalists. I would guess many other bishops did as well. How is that silence?

Because they have been happy for the media to portray this as a simple vote for or against having female bishops: it wasn't. The scary thing is this: I think that a lot of bishops, clergy and laity really do think that it was too.

I haven't read all of the letters you mention but I wouldn't mind betting that they were all marked by the same passive-aggressive hand-wringing about how hurt they are on behalf of everyone who was hoping to have female bishops. None of them, that I've read, have said anything about GETTING THE PROVISION RIGHT and then moving forward as a whole church into the future that God has in store.

Also, none of them have said anything like, "God is sovereign. His will has been done. Our job is ask him why and what for." You know, pointing people to God and all that: the stuff bishops should be doing. Instead you get, "Yes, God must be as disappointed as you are. Poor God. Poor us. It must be so hard for him to love those conservatives when they keep frustrating his will like that. Oh, well perhaps we can force it through for him by manipulating the system."

[ 29. November 2012, 07:37: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
If he was well, he could have abstained in person.

(And that would be my best guess of how he might have voted.)

I like it.

I wonder if he was seen in public during the week after the vote.

Thurible

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Also, none of them have said anything like, "God is sovereign. His will has been done. Our job is ask him why and what for."

Probably because a vote in General Synod - whichever way it goes, and whatever it's for - is not the Will of God. It's the accumulated will of the people doing the voting.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
If he was well, he could have abstained in person.

(And that would be my best guess of how he might have voted.)
I like it.

I wonder if he was seen in public during the week after the vote.

Thurible

He wasn't. He was in bed. And most of the crap that's talked about bishops being untrustworthy is fuelled by the kind of gossipy nonsensical speculation being pedalled here. It's a case of "we don't trust the bishops because we want to beleive the worst of them." If clergy could stop this kind of snide defamatory innuendo, we'd be a much healthier church.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Also, none of them have said anything like, "God is sovereign. His will has been done. Our job is ask him why and what for."

I wonder what the basis is for you thinking God's will was done in this? Do you think everything that happens on earth is God's will? Or everything that the General Synod decides? Even a decision-making body full of the most holy people on earth might make a decision that doesn't reflect God's will, I'd have thought...

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
If clergy could stop this kind of snide defamatory innuendo, we'd be a much healthier church.

And if people stuck to facts instead of filling gaps with speculation, about 80% of the media industry would collapse overnight. Starting with tabloids and "women's magazines". I don't hold out much hope, myself. Gossiping is SUCH fun.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

Pete173 wrote

quote:
It's a case of "we don't trust the bishops because we want to beleive the worst of them." If clergy could stop this kind of snide defamatory innuendo, we'd be a much healthier church.

Preach it bro! It's not just clergy, it's laity also, and seems to be endemic in my corner og the globe. That's what I was trying to say in my earlier post.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

I haven't read all of the letters you mention but I wouldn't mind betting that they were all marked by the same passive-aggressive hand-wringing about how hurt they are on behalf of everyone who was hoping to have female bishops. None of them, that I've read, have said anything about GETTING THE PROVISION RIGHT and then moving forward as a whole church into the future that God has in store.

He's not a bishop now, but here's Tom Wright's article from the Times as republished by Fulcrum. Doesn't fit your depiction at all. (And I agree with pretty much all of it myself)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Tom Wright is still a bishop - just not a diocesan one.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thurible:
[qb]He wasn't. He was in bed. And most of the crap that's talked about bishops being untrustworthy is fuelled by the kind of gossipy nonsensical speculation being pedalled here. It's a case of "we don't trust the bishops because we want to beleive the worst of them." If clergy could stop this kind of snide defamatory innuendo, we'd be a much healthier church.

Good. I'm glad that he was, indeed, ill and hope that's he better now. I am glad that it wasn't simply convenience.

Given that you accused those who voted against of stupidity on the day of the vote, I think accusations of defamation are a little rich, if I might say so.

Thurible

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

I thought it was tactically stupid to vote down the legislation. A one clause measure now looms, with no provision at all. As you may know, I've been fighting for provision all the way through, and we could have made the Measure work, even though it wasn't all they were after. I think opponents weren't listening during the debate and simply didn't "get" how far they were likely to piss everyone off by voting it down. They needed a bit of pragmatism and emotional intelligence, and displayed neither. So, yes, stupid. Winning a battle and losing the war.

I will continue to argue for provision, but I am pretty pessimistic that opponents will get anything out of this.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Accusing people of stupidity is scarcely defamation; it's a perfectly legimate expression of opinion, and any fule lawyer kno that opinion is a defence to a claim for defamation.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
If clergy could stop this kind of snide defamatory innuendo, we'd be a much healthier church.
And if people stuck to facts instead of filling gaps with speculation, about 80% of the media industry would collapse overnight. Starting with tabloids and "women's magazines". I don't hold out much hope, myself. Gossiping is SUCH fun.

I pray daily for an end to celebrity culture, media tittle-tattle and other tedious nonsense.

The more achievable answer to prayer would be to start with the Church living counter-culturally and (particularly the Anglo-Catholics) to stop being gossip merchants. Whether or not they enjoy it, it's actually poisonous.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Accusing people of stupidity is scarcely defamation; it's a perfectly legimate expression of opinion, and any fule lawyer kno that opinion is a defence to a claim for defamation.

I wasn't using defamation in a legal sense, as I'm sure you realised.

pete173, I'm aware of your keenness for provision and am grateful for it. I assure you, and your brother bishops, of my prayers as you try and work something out that will truly be good news.

when you've got +Geoffrey, +Martin, and +Nicholas on board , we're probably in business.

Thurible

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
]He's not a bishop now, but here's Tom Wright's article from the Times as republished by Fulcrum. Doesn't fit your depiction at all. (And I agree with pretty much all of it myself)

That is excellent. It's the best thing I've read about this whole affair.

Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on :

I have to say I've been very impressed by the way in which many bishops responded to the 'No', clearing diaries and calling open meetings for their diocesan clergy. Having attended one of these open clergy meetings, which took the form of a late night prayer meeting with discussion forum -I was really encouraged by the fire that the Bishop demonstrated... I only hope that all the bishops are so zealous and fervent when they get together this week -so that a serious theological response does not lose momentum.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

I think that the fire with which some bishops have responded will go some way to confirming, in some people's minds, that they were quite right to reject any notion of provision which relied primarily on trust rather than force of statute.

Thurible

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

I liked Tom Wright's article. Yes, it's disappointing for those who long for the acceptance of CofE women bishops. But I think it's very unhelpful to negatively undermine the part the laity have played in bringing about the 'no' vote, by assuming lack of intelligence, spirituality or implying bad faith. When women's priesting was okayed by Synod no doubt those who voted for it would've expected fellow Christian opponents to at least assume good faith in their deliberations, however unwelcome the result. That this has not always been the case is one of the miserable outcomes of such conflicts and it wears no better an aspect when it comes from the other side of the argument.

That's not to say that there aren't sometimes bad or wrong human motives mixed in; I felt particularly irritated today reading a friend's (who is a priest) letter about one of her clergy colleagues in the parish newsletter saying it was about time women 'priests' woke up, did the right thing and graciously resigned their posts, and leave the Church to God's real elect!

But I believe God will work through this vote, as he's worked through everything else we've thrown in his way! Obviously, I'm a supporter of women's bishops, so I would phrase it that way. But along with others I don't think the issue should necessarily be guided by societal norms; although there are times when surely God does speak prophetically in the moment? But maybe the CofE just isn't ready.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...here's Tom Wright's article from the Times as republished by Fulcrum. ... (And I agree with pretty much all of it myself)

So do I. Bang on.

This is worrying, Like Spring, agreement is breaking out all over.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Fulcrum were late to publish, traditionalist and MOR groups as well as Conservative Evangelicals publishing their statements very soon after the synod vote. Tom Wright's article was kept back for simultaneous publication with the Times and Fulcrum's Editor preparing articles for Christian magazines as well as the BBC News 24 channel.

When they did publish it was well thought out and balanced. Which shows that it is good to take your time and think thing through before rushing into print.

I'm glad that Fulcrum was balanced, because I believe they indicate the direction the CofE will be heading under ++Welby.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0